PDA

View Full Version : All-Time Pacers



KennerLeaguer
09-04-2010, 11:48 AM
Athlon Sports just came out with its NBA magazine edition for the 2010-2011 season. Inside they do a top five all-time breakdown for each team. Actually its probably more like a top all-time starting five since the magazine stick by a rigid pattern of having two guards, tow forwards and one center for each All-Time teams. So if you are a team/franchise in which three of your top five all time players were guards or three of your all-time players were centers, youíre out of luck and wonít get an accurate representation.

With that out of the way hereís the list for the Pacers:

G- Mark Jackson
G-Reggie Miller
F-Jermaine OíNeal
F-George McGinnis
C-Mel Daniels


What do you Pacers' fans think of the list? Iím surprised Smits wasnít chosen although I'll admit Iím mostly ignorant when it comes to Mel Daniels' career.

Hicks
09-04-2010, 11:52 AM
If Ron didn't have issues from the neck up, I'd say he belongs there instead of Jermaine. Honestly, I wish Danny would just get back to wanting to be a good defender again, and then I could easily say put him there instead of either of those two.

Jose Slaughter
09-04-2010, 12:17 PM
Just my 2 cents but I would replace O'Neal with Roger Brown & give serious thought to Don Buse instead of Jackson.

mildlysane
09-04-2010, 12:26 PM
You forgot about Damon Bailey!

count55
09-04-2010, 12:27 PM
Freddie Lewis ahead of Buse, but it's close between him and Jackson.

Rajah definitely belongs ahead of O'Neal.

I Love P
09-04-2010, 01:32 PM
Tim Hardaway?

Kstat
09-04-2010, 01:39 PM
If Ron didn't have issues from the neck up, I'd say he belongs there instead of Jermaine.

The irony in that statement is that the exact same thing could be said about George McGinnis.

IMO, Chuck Person belongs on there instead of McGinnis. The rest of the list is fine. Roger Brown and Jermaine O'Neal is a bit of a toss-up. Brown was a glue guy and a winner, but if you're going on individual accomplishments and sheer individual talent, O'Neal is probably the most skilled big man the Pacers have ever had.

Also, Granger at least right now isn't on the level of at least 3 or 4 different historical Pacers small forwards. He's somewhere between Derrick McKey and Detlef Schrempf if I had to make a list right now.

I'd go with this as my first 3 teams:

1st

C: Mel Daniels
F: Jermaine O'Neal
F: Chuck Person
G: Reggie Miller
G: Mark Jackson

2nd

C: Rik Smits
F: Roger Brown
F: George McGinnis
G: Billy Knight
G: Don Buse

3rd

C: Herb Williams
F: Dale Davis
F: Detlef Schempf
G: Jalen Rose
G: Vern Fleming

PacersPride
09-04-2010, 01:57 PM
Dale Davis should be considered, and/or Jeff Foster. Its not all about offensive statistics and those two players brought a helluva lot to the court.

Kstat
09-04-2010, 02:01 PM
I'm going to pretend you didn't just put Dale Davis and Jeff Foster in the same sentence.

Dale Davis has choked better players than Jeff Foster.

Frostwolf
09-04-2010, 02:18 PM
Dale Davis has choked better players than Jeff Foster.

:cool:!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slick Pinkham
09-04-2010, 03:47 PM
The irony in that statement is that the exact same thing could be said about George McGinnis.


what?????

Big Mac's prime was short for a lot of resaons but he was never a headcase. Too much junk food and, as I recall, a fondness for cigarettes and maybe some booze was his downfall after seven straight 20+/10+ years. That 29.8/14.3 with 6.3 assists year made his price too high. I cried like a baby when he jumped to the Sixers.

Ron Artest in his prime was a poor imitation of George even if Ron were sane, and George didn't disappear in the clutch.

Kstat
09-04-2010, 03:55 PM
I was referring to his one-court meltdowns rather than his off-court ones. The guy was a turnover waiting to happen, and usually at the worst possible time.

McGinnis was one of those guys that was often his own worst enemy. When he got to the NBA, that doomed him as much as his lack of conditioning.

You could make a legit argument that McGinnis was the most turnover-prone player in the history of basketball. It wasn't because he was a bad player, either. The guy had mental issues when the game was slowed down and he was forced to think. He had a bad habit of doing everything 1-on-1 in pressure situations.

Slick Pinkham
09-04-2010, 04:32 PM
Looking at the list of 32 nba/aba players with more career turnovers than George, not all of them had longer careers. He did turn it over, but that comes with the full-court style they played.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/tov_career.html

Kstat
09-04-2010, 04:47 PM
Looking at the list of 32 nba/aba players with more career turnovers than George, not all of them had longer careers. He did turn it over, but that comes with the full-court style they played.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/tov_career.html

He didn't just turn it over somewhat. He led the entire league in turnovers, 3 of the 4 complete seasons he played with the Pacers. He holds the top three single season records for turnovers, including a whopping 422-turnover campaign that nobody outside of McGinnis himself has come within 50 of since.

You can't pass McGinnis's turnover issues off as a product of the system when the next-sloppiest player in the entire league had 78 fewer turnovers.

McKeyFan
09-04-2010, 06:15 PM
and George didn't disappear in the clutch.

I don't remember Ron disappearing in the clutch. I remember JO disappearing and us going to Ron as the better option.

Peck
09-04-2010, 07:02 PM
It's really so hard to judge things like this when you go across generations and in this case entire leagues. I mean while Mel Daniels certainly would be a player in the NBA and a starter would he have been a star? I don't know and neither does anyone else, I mean we can speculate but it's all just a guess.

With that in mind though I will attempt to make my own.

1st
C- Mel Daniels
F- Roger Brown
F- George McGinnis
G- Reggie Miller
G- Freddie Lewis

2nd
C- Rik Smits
F- Billy Knight
F- Dale Davis (yea I know, so sue me)
G- Don Buse
G- Mark Jackson

3rd
C- Jermaine O'Neal
F- Danny Granger
F- Clark Kellogg (somewhere right now Chicago J's head just exploded)
G- Ricky Sobers
G- Johnny Davis

Day-V
09-04-2010, 07:18 PM
PG: Flip Murray
SG: Andre Owens
SF: Duane Ferrell
PF: Ike Digou
C: Zan Tabak

6th Man: Mark Pope

Kstat
09-04-2010, 07:43 PM
It's really so hard to judge things like this when you go across generations and in this case entire leagues. I mean while Mel Daniels certainly would be a player in the NBA and a starter would he have been a star? I don't know and neither does anyone else, I mean we can speculate but it's all just a guess.

With that in mind though I will attempt to make my own.



OK, while I realize these things are mostly arbitrary, I have to know what twisted logic you have for not ranking Chuck person as one of the top six Pacer forwards of all time...

Mind you, I have been dumping on Person since before this place was ever created. And I'm taking Person's side here.

Peck
09-04-2010, 07:52 PM
OK, while I realize these things are mostly arbitrary, I have to know what twisted logic you have for not ranking Chuck person as one of the top six Pacer forwards of all time...

Mind you, I have been dumping on Person since before this place was ever created. And I'm taking Person's side here.

Well we agree it is subjective. Big Mac & Roger Brown I'm giving way to the legends as I never actually saw Roger play in person and when I saw Big Mac he was a shell of his former self.

Billy Knight I just thought was better. He was a better scorer and a better rebounder and neither of them played a lick of defense.

Dale is obviously Dale so if you want to throw him in there I probably would disagree but I am not so stubborn as to say that I am not seeing what I want to see there.

Kellogg obviously had his career cut short but in the two seasons he played I thought he was very good and better than Chuck.

Danny is getting his nads kicked in lately for his lack of defensive effort and he deserves it but at one time he was a pretty good defender and scorer. Chuck was just a scorer.

Kstat
09-04-2010, 08:00 PM
Well we agree it is subjective. Big Mac & Roger Brown I'm giving way to the legends as I never actually saw Roger play in person and when I saw Big Mac he was a shell of his former self.

Billy Knight I just thought was better. He was a better scorer and a better rebounder and neither of them played a lick of defense.

Dale is obviously Dale so if you want to throw him in there I probably would disagree but I am not so stubborn as to say that I am not seeing what I want to see there.

Kellogg obviously had his career cut short but in the two seasons he played I thought he was very good and better than Chuck.

Danny is getting his nads kicked in lately for his lack of defensive effort and he deserves it but at one time he was a pretty good defender and scorer. Chuck was just a scorer.


I was far more amused with the selections of Ricky Sobers and Johnny Davis than any of those guys. Knight is a no-brainier and Kellogg is understandable. I can see the logic behind Granger as well.

Peck
09-04-2010, 08:02 PM
Yea our back court history leaves a lot to be desired. I almost threw John Long out there or Super John Williamson.

Kstat
09-04-2010, 08:04 PM
I would have understood John Long more than Ricky Sobers.

Hell, I'd have understood Haywoode Workman more than Johnny Davis.

Peck
09-04-2010, 08:21 PM
I would have understood John Long more than Ricky Sobers.

Hell, I'd have understood Haywoode Workman more than Johnny Davis.

Meh, Ricky was a hell of a player when he was here. Built like a linebacker and defended like a wolverine. I thought the combo of the Davis/Sobers was actually very good for us for that short time. Trading him for Mikey Johnson just never made sense to me but it may have been Ricky's desire to move on.

Davis by himself, yea I never thought much of him but I guess I was going on my memory of the two of them together. In fact I could see an argument fo the good Jamaal Tinsely being included in that list. He just had more bad overall than good, but when he was good he was actually pretty good.

With Woody I figured I was only going to be allowed one sentimental favorite.:)

Kstat
09-04-2010, 08:23 PM
If you wanted to go with a guard that was really good for a short period of time, Michael Williams might have been a better pick.

Hicks
09-04-2010, 08:36 PM
No Mark Jackson, Peck?

speakout4
09-04-2010, 09:00 PM
The irony in that statement is that the exact same thing could be said about George McGinnis.

IMO, Chuck Person belongs on there instead of McGinnis. The rest of the list is fine. Roger Brown and Jermaine O'Neal is a bit of a toss-up. Brown was a glue guy and a winner, but if you're going on individual accomplishments and sheer individual talent, O'Neal is probably the most skilled big man the Pacers have ever had.

Also, Granger at least right now isn't on the level of at least 3 or 4 different historical Pacers small forwards. He's somewhere between Derrick McKey and Detlef Schrempf if I had to make a list right now.

I'd go with this as my first 3 teams:

1st

C: Mel Daniels
F: Jermaine O'Neal
F: Chuck Person
G: Reggie Miller
G: Mark Jackson

2nd

C: Rik Smits
F: Roger Brown
F: George McGinnis
G: Billy Knight
G: Don Buse

3rd

C: Herb Williams
F: Dale Davis
F: Detlef Schempf
G: Jalen Rose
G: Vern Fleming
Do you think that Person was better than Schrempf? I remember Person shooting lots of shots during garbage time when the game was never on the line. Schrempf played on a more competitive team than Chuck and while i never saw McGinnis play for the pacers I believe he was way past his prime to deserve the distinction you give him.

avoidingtheclowns
09-04-2010, 09:18 PM
No Mark Jackson, Peck?

2nd team


2nd
C- Rik Smits
F- Billy Knight
F- Dale Davis (yea I know, so sue me)
G- Don Buse
G- Mark Jackson

Hicks
09-04-2010, 09:38 PM
When I saw it, he had Freddie Lewis listed instead of Jax.

beast23
09-04-2010, 11:10 PM
I looked at the all-time list a little differently. Recognizing that the modern game is based on C, PF, SF, SG and PG rather than C, 2Fs, 2Gs, I attempted to base my selections on fitting the lineup to a modern game. I figured that this was the best way to take my ABA-bias out of my selections...but still ended up with 4 players who played at least part of thier careers in the ABA. Recognizing that the lineup is a bit small for modern ball, I went with the following:

C - Daniels
PF - McGinnis
SF - Brown
SG - Miller
PG - Buse

PG was difficult because Jackson was such an extraordinary distributor. But except for that one skill, Buse's all-around skills were much, much better. He was an extraordinary defender, a very good distributor and a very good shooter when left open. Freddy Lewis was also a consideration, but his game lost out in trying to translate it to the modern game for me. Lewis played during a time when teams played 2 guards, 2 forwards and a center. To me, Freddy just wasn't the playmaker that some of the guards that came after him were.

SG and C were no-brainers.

PF - McGinnis was the first true PF. Kstat points out that he committed a lot of errors (true), but also fails to mention that 8 of the top 10 turnover producers are members of the hall of fame. In other words, when you are a go to player and the ball is going to go through you on every possession, you are likely to commit more errors than most of your teammates. Person on his best day was not half the player George was in his prime. McGinnis was the fastest Pacer end-to-end, was a very good defensive player and was just a brute on the floor. He was a smoker during an era where the vast majority of players smoked. His decline had a lot more to do with problems with both knees and an ankle, which then progressed into his lower back. Bobby Leonard loved George McGinnis, that is why the Pacers traded for George, to enable him to be on a roster for 2 additonal seasons to gain him his full NBA pension after 10 years. George did not want to play those final two years, but was convinced by Bobby that his minutes would be reduced and that he could play when he was able to play and could sit when he told them the pain was too bad. I know George McGinnis and consider him a friend, but from a team performance perspective, I will readily admit that reacquiring him was one of the Pacer's poorest business decisions. As a human being, I'd say that reacquring him was one of the best acts of respect that I've ever witnessed in sports.

SF - This was my toughest position to select, but I went with Brown. Simply put, Brown was one of the best scorers that I've ever seen. He could hit the three either setting up or on the move, if you came out to defend him, he not only blew by you, but embarrassed the hell out of you as he was doing it. It was impossible to count the times that defenders ended up sliding backwards on their backsides trying to stop with Brown as he pulled up for quick-stop jumpers. Brown was capable of being a league scoring leader, but unlike many of the other players that led the league, had a lot more capable scorers around him to share the wealth with. At SF, I also considered, Knight (because I couldn't put him ahead of Reggie at SG), Person, English and Schrempf.

cinotimz
09-05-2010, 01:29 AM
While I understand Person was a fan favorite, Im not sure how objective it is putting him in the same breath with guys like McGinnis, Brown, English, Dantley, O'neal, Knight, Mullin, Schrempf, Granger or Artest. All these guys are All-Stars-in most cases multiple times over. No way I personally would select Person over any of those guys in my lineup. Moreover, I would be hard-pressed to select Person over Dale Davis or even Jalen Rose.

My starting 5 would probably be Daniels, O'neal, Artest, Miller, and Buse.

I would do so with both ends of the floor in mind. Defensively that lineup would be superb and very balanced and dangerous on the offensive end.

O'neal over McGinnis and Artest over Brown would be the closest calls...but in both cases defense was the deciding factor. O'neal and McGinnis were both gifted offensively. Both are good defensively, but though I like Big Mac far more than JO, objectivity says JO would bring more to the table defensively-both individually and team. The Rajah was just a fabulous offensive player, however I chose to go with defense over offense-especially with Reggie at the other wing.

Foul on Smits
09-05-2010, 02:30 AM
Dont let Pooh Richardson find this thread!:-o

ChicagoJ
09-06-2010, 11:28 AM
(somewhere right now Chicago J's head just exploded)


You're outta your mind.

:crazy:

:D

ChicagoJ
09-06-2010, 11:18 PM
Here's the current version of my all-time roster:

PG - (8) Jackson, (11) Buse
SG - (1) Reggie, (5) Rah-jah, (9) Knight
SF - (6) Rifleman, (10) Granger, (Knight), (12) Rose
PF - (3) Big Mac, (4) JO
C - (2) Daniels, (7) Smits

I think the top-11 are clear.

As for filling out the 12th man on the roster, I have several thoughts. Neto and Freddie Lewis are deserving, of course, but the ABA teams are already represented by the Big Three.

Billy Knight represents the early-NBA Pacers. We had some other really good players spend a season in Indianapolis, but Alex English, Adrian Dantley, and John Williamson didn't spend enough time on the Pacers to qualify for my all-time Pacers roster.

Nobody from 81-86 is eligible, for obvious reasons. A case could be made for Stipo and Fleming surving the dreadful Indiana Buckeyes era and being key players on Rifleman's 1987 playoff team. But by the 1991 season, Vern was a backup and Stipo was retired, and Chuck (a) needed more help, and (b) was our original version of "yes, he's our best player, but we probably need someone better as our best overall player."

Over the 1990s, one could consider Dale Davis and Jalen Rose in addition to Miller, Jackson and Smits. And since Jalen was the team's top player for a few seasons, including the team's only NBA Finals appearance, he gets to hold onto the #12 spot in spite of only spending a few seasons here.

The dysfunctional 2000's only merit one member on the team. I know UB probably wants all 12 players from the 2003-04 roster on his all-time team to go with that "61-WINS!! WOOT!" banner. (:D) For my list, however, the guy that was hands-down the best player in the EC in both 2002-03 and 2003-04, finished third in the MVP balloting in 03-04, and "almost" held the most dysfunctional team ever assembled together is the representative. Even if his Pacers career ended badly, his two-year peak was substantially higher than any other NBA-era Pacer has achieved. Reggie is adored for longevity and clutch shots, not because he was ever a top-five player (and he, as has been discussed ad naseum, was rarely a top-three player at his position.)

Hibbert and Collison have legit chances to move into the top-12 over the next several years. Of course, eight years ago Tinsley and Artest had the same opportunity to do so and they royally ****ed it up, and ****ed up the team too. So it will be fun to see what happens with this young roster. Clearly if the team was just based on Mad Skillz, they'd be in the top-12. But there is much, much more to basketball than Mad Skillz.

BobbyMac
09-06-2010, 11:34 PM
Well we agree it is subjective. Big Mac & Roger Brown I'm giving way to the legends as I never actually saw Roger play in person and when I saw Big Mac he was a shell of his former self.

Billy Knight I just thought was better. He was a better scorer and a better rebounder and neither of them played a lick of defense.


I once aske Slick if he thougt Billy Knight was as good a Roger Brown, He just laughed and said no....kept giggling under his breath for some time after that. Roger simply did what was necessary to win games, he could have averaged 25 easily, but it was more important to win.

Peck
09-07-2010, 12:01 AM
Well we agree it is subjective. Big Mac & Roger Brown I'm giving way to the legends as I never actually saw Roger play in person and when I saw Big Mac he was a shell of his former self.

Billy Knight I just thought was better. He was a better scorer and a better rebounder and neither of them played a lick of defense.


I once aske Slick if he thougt Billy Knight was as good a Roger Brown, He just laughed and said no....kept giggling under his breath for some time after that. Roger simply did what was necessary to win games, he could have averaged 25 easily, but it was more important to win.

Bobby, I hope you understood that I was saying that Billy was better than Chuck Person, not Roger Brown.

As I said I can only talk about film and legend when it came to Roger however there are testimonials from other players that speak very highly of Roger and his three rings and name in the rafter speak for itself.

But comparing Billy to Chuck I just thought in their primes that Billy was a better player.

If you have some tales to tell about Roger Brown I would love to hear them. One of the great joys of my life was listening to ABAdays talk about old players and his eyes would light up whenever he talked about the Rah-Jah.

ChicagoJ
09-07-2010, 12:07 AM
Bobby, I hope you understood that I was saying that Billy was better than Chuck Person, not Roger Brown.

As I said I can only talk about film and legand when it came to Roger however there are testamonials from other players that speak very highly of Roger and his three rings and name in the rafter speak for itself.

But comparing Billy to Chuck I just thought in their primes that billey was a better player.

If you have some tales to tell about Roger Brown I would love to hear them. One of the great joys of my life was listening to ABAdays talk about old players and his eyes would light up whenever he talked about the Rah-Jah.

I don't think Chuck was much better than BK. But I saw Chuck single-handedly carry the Pacers to victory more often than Billy did. Billy is securely in my second five, and while Chuck would be my starting SF, he's also in the second five.

Peck
09-07-2010, 12:32 AM
I don't think Chuck was much better than BK. But I saw Chuck single-handedly carry the Pacers to victory more often than Billy did. Billy is securely in my second five, and while Chuck would be my starting SF, he's also in the second five.

Chuck was flamboyant that is for sure. I guess my problem with Chuck was I saw him shoot us out of games as often as I saw him shoot them into one.

However I am not taking the ball kicking in the united center into consideration, if I did that it would probably jettison him to the top of the heap. :)

ChicagoJ
09-07-2010, 10:11 AM
Technically, it was the old Stadium, not The UC.

And yes, with Chuck there was a downside. For that matter, I've seen Reggie shoot us out of a few games, too. That happens when your best offensive player is more of a "shooter" than a "scorer".